TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred in law as well as on facts, in not considering /dealing and appreciating the plea that the assessment u/s.147 was completed after the expiry of 9 months from the end of FY in which notice u/s.148(2) was served and thus, the re-assessment made u/s.147 is time barred and invalid and it deserved to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts, in estimating the income at Rs. 32% of the undisclosed bank transaction of Rs. 1,57,84,050/- without giving any basis for such arbitrary estimation and ignoring the 'comparable case' ( i.e. the firm M/s. Walraj Service Center' in which the assessee is one of the partners) given by the assessee. 3. That the assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, protective assessment cannot be made in reassessment proceedings u/s.147/148; it would be impermissible on the ground that a contingency may arise in future resulting in escapement of income' intimation u/s.148/147 is invalid as there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed while disposing off the appeals of the revenue in the assessee's case, i.e, in ITA No.146 & 147/BLPR/2011 dated 31.12.2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, taking cognizance of the fact that the CIT(Appeals) while disposing off the respective appeals had failed to consider the "remand report" that was filed by the A.O before him, thus, restored the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Also, a similar order was passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case of the firm, viz. M/s. Walraj Service Center in ITA Nos. 150 & 151/BLPR/2011 dated 31.12.2014, wherein too on the aforesaid issue the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. 6. After having received the order of the Tribunal, the CIT(Appeals) vide his order passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)/BSP/A No.99/2009-10 dated 18.03.2016 re- adjudicated the issue. Observing that the amount of Rs. 1,57,84,050/- was the undisclosed turnover of the assessee who was engaged in the business of trading in lubricants and petroleum products, the CIT(Appeals) substituted the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the case of the assessee was based on dumb reasons which clearly revealed non-application of mind by the A.O a/w absence of any nexus with the material available on record for formation of a bonafide belief on his part that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; and (iii) that the A.O had gravely erred in framing a protective assessment u/s.147 of the Act on the ground that a contingency may arise in future which may result to escapement of income. 11. We shall first deal with the claim of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the A.O u/ss.143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 24.11.2009 is barred by limitation. On a perusal of the records, we find that the case of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2005-06 was reopened by the A.O vide notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.02.2008, Page 1 of APB. As stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, as per the "second proviso" to section 153(2) of the Act, as was available on the statute at the relevant point of time, no assessment order u/s.147 of the Act could be passed by the A.O after expiry of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s.148 was served. For t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee which is based on a copy of the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 26.02.2008 that had been filed before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') was directed to produce the assessment records. On a perusal of the assessment records for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y.2005- 06 (duly numbered as Page 1-122), we find that the notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 26.02.2008 is placed at Page 1 of the assessment record. Apart from that, we find that the CIT(Appeals) in his order dated 18.03.2016 had also categorically stated that the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O vide a notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, dated 26.02.2008. On further verification of the records before us, we find that the assessee vide his letter addressed to the CIT(Appeals), Bilaspur dated 13.07.2015, Page 19 of APB had categorically stated before him that the A.O had erroneously in the body of the re-assessment order mentioned that notice u/s.148 was issued on 26.02.2009, Page 20-Para-1.1 of APB. For the sake of clarity, the aforesaid claim raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals), is reproduced as under: "1.1. After setting aside the assessment to your Honor's file, in ....